Allahabad High Court
Sadab vs The State Of U.P. on 7 November, 2012
Bench: Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- BAIL No. - 5691 of 2012
Petitioner :- Sadab
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Girish Kr.Pande,Akhilesh Kr.Srivastava,Prashant Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the F.I.R. and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application.
This is the second bail application of the applicant. First bail application was rejected by this Court on 23.05.2012 vide Cr. Misc. Case No.3225/2012 (B).
The accused applicant is in jail since 22.03.2012 and the trial has not yet begun. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:-
" In Bihar Fodder Scam [Laloo Prasad case, (2002) 9 SCC 372] this court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period of more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pretrial prisoners would not serve any purpose."
While deciding that case, Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon the law laid down by it in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1950 SC 27 and has held that as under:-
"The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt."
This Court is fully conscious that the personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the particular facts and circumstances of the case.
In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spend in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spend 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille."
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above is a corner stone relating to fundamental right of liberty vis-a-vis prevention of crime.
Considering the facts and circumstances and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, let the accused applicant be released on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2012 under Sections 380/411 I.P.C., P.S. Ashiana, Lucknow on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate concerned.
Order Date :- 7.11.2012
Ram.
